Btw, they also tested the flare introduced by the filters by taking real photos, with and without the filters side-by-side and the result pictures are posted, like this:-

Last but not least, the visible light transmission rate, UV light blocking rate and vignetting were also measured in the test. An overall mark is then given for all the measurements and field tests carried out. You could also read the final conclusion for each filter in each test and could compare different filters further. A good comprehensive set of tests, professionally done, highly recommended!

Besides, it seems that the Hoya regular HMC filters are still the best deal out there, with consistent good overall performance and lower prices. However, I've noticed that many users have been confusing about the notations and actually difference of UV(0), UV(N) and UV(C) (amongst which the (N) and (C) filters were not tested above) used by Hoya, the chain of Q&A emails in this forum post may clear things up!

Well, the pictures look quite real to me. My new "affordable" FF dream could finally be completed, unfortunately not in the Pentaxland, since it only arrives at Canon's! :-(

Btw, the Canon EF-mount system is the only viable DSLR system that could adapt Pentax film lenses with infinity focusing but without any major mount surgery required (and it is reversible for the temporary removal of the aperture coupler of the lenses).

Well, it has 1 megapixels more than that of the 645D, so the Nokia wins in the race! Its sensor is larger than that of the Q by almost four times in area! And, it has a Carl Zeiss lens, of which all models had been discontinued for the Pentax system earlier! :-(

Monday, February 27, 2012

Btw, Canon don't have any white coloured lens in short focals. So, this certainly looks fake in the beginning! And I don't think it looks anything good against my 70-200L telephoto, which has a silver lining near the lens front. As for that EFS 18-55, I think they should have at least kept/re-painted the silver lining of the zoom scale! Nope? :-(

2. Turn the even ever cheapest AF prime on Earth into a White Luxury lens!

Now, it becomes to look like my 17-40L and 24-105L etc.! But, I just wish to ask, what does the hobbyist/blogger want?! When the lens is black, he re-painted it into white, and this time when it is white, he had to re-paint it into black!?

4. Even Nikon cannot be "exempted"! Now it is turned from Black into White for that ED telephoto lens!

Oh, that pity black/gold lens now becomes a Canon white lens, but without the Red lining! :-o

After all, it seems to have a lot of fun there for what the hobbyist has done, but frankly I don't think it is worth to do so, unless you've nothing better to do and have too much time to spend (or waste IMHO)! :-x And, do bear in mind such lens disassembling and camera hacking might cause unnecessary misalignment to the internal optical elements and could eventually affect the final image quality, not even to say the mechanical and electronic integrity of the lenses might be affected as well.

At the end of the day, I still like my Pentax white lens in Gold lining, which is yet unique in the Pentax lens line (ever and against other makes' as well) and is yet looking nice~

So, the pixel count race has not yet stopped actually and now those small DC sensors continue to grow! If there is going to be a Q-02, this possibly the new sensor that fits the same image-circle size and it will have even a higher pixel count than the K-5! :-o

Oh, it's really terrible! :-{ Now, I am really satisfied with the weaker highlight preservation of my K-5, as there exists other camera on Earth which has even far more serious problem of this! :-o The above test shows that the new firmware is not going to help. It's really sad after all! At the end of the day, I am still asking the same question: Is firmware going to help for eliminating a *hardware* issue? >:-|

Thursday, February 23, 2012

With a 5.5X multiplying factor of the Q, the effective 35mm film equivalent focal length with the same Angle of View is about 137.5mm. It seems to be a Full Manual lens nevertheless, for both focusing and aperture control, as seen in the above second picture. Estimated price is at US$650, via DC Fever:-

This reminds me of a forum thread that I came across some time ago in which someone made a quick calculation about the actual focal length of the Tamron 90. I've forgot and lost the link anyway. However, I still remember the rationale behind the calculations involved, which is really simple. As such, I don't mind to work it out again on my own. I think it would still be quite interesting to work it out and compare the two after all.

First of all, we need to learn the lens formula, i.e. the basic law for lenses and optics, which will be used:-

(For Convex Lenses)

Where 1/S1 + 1/S2 = 1/f and f is the unknown parameter that we are going to calculate, i.e., the true focal length.

Now, both macro lenses have the same maximum 1:1 macro capability as designed and specified. As such, we can simply make S1 = S2 = S under this case and the formula is further simplified as 2/S = 1/f, or simply: f = S/2.

Next, the object to film-plane distance, i.e., 2 x S, is to be found out. This total distance is the "minimum focus" + lens physical length when fully extended (i.e., at 1:1) + the K-mount flange to film distance (i.e., back focus register distance which is in 0.045m for K-mount - the 0.46mm tolerance is for the film thickness).

It should then be noted that whilst the closest focusing distances and the minimum physical lengths are all given in the two specs, the full extended physical lengths of the lenses are not given. But nevermind, PF has taken those comparison photos for the lenses when they are fully extended and retracted. So, I can simply derive the required extended lengths of the lenses by proportion, after some simple measurements on the figures.

Wow, what a coincidence! Both actual focals are actually more or less the same! :-o And, both lenses when focused at the 1:1 closest distance are actually having a longer true focal than the specified focal of 90mm and 100mm respectively, no matter what the lens is named. :-)

FA43 lens on K-5, shot on tripod, 2s self-timer/SR off, ISO 100, f/5.6, Natural Custom Image (Saturation +1). Images were then resized to 3,999 pixels in width and all EXIF data are preserved. Click on the following links to download and view the large samples in new tabs:-

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

DA21 lens on K-5, shot on tripod, 2s self-timer/SR off, ISO 100, f/6.7, Natural Custom Image (Saturation +1). Images were then resized to 3,999 pixels in width and all EXIF data are preserved. Click on the following links to download and view the large samples in new tabs:-

DA21 lens on K-5, shot handheld, ISO 100, f/6.7, Natural Custom Image (Saturation +1). Images were then resized to 3,999 pixels in width and all EXIF data are preserved. Click on the following links to download and view the large samples in new tabs. Go measurebate and judge yourself for any differences, and which setting you would prefer:-

Someone posted at the PF has found out that a -100 um correction in Debug mode is actually corresponding to -10 in the AF Fine Adjust menu. This actually coincides with my own experience and it would be somehow safe to conclude that ONE AF Fine Adjust correction unit corresponds to 10 um. That's why some Pentaxians were complaining about the inadequacy of this +/-10 units when some of their lenses were used on their Pentax DSLRs of which those combinations had even larger errors than the allowed correction range!

* Sequential Write is the most important performance figure as most digital image and video files are usually written sequentially.

** Sequential Read affects playback time for review and determine the time for copying/moving back the image/video files from memory card to computer.

*** GF1 is also tested with the Toshiba 2GB "White Card" as it seems to perform very well in K-5 despite its age. The performance difference between the two cameras is then checked and compared. It seems that the K-5 is roughly about 50% faster than the GF1 for both reading and writing.

Update (2-23): Some people have questioned about the speed of USB of being the "limiting" factor in my test. But as I've already replied in the Comments section below, USB 2.0, which the K-5 uses, had a maximum transfer rate of 480 Mbps (Mega bits per second) in its designed specifications which is close to 60MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) roughly (assuming 1M = 1,000,000 bits and the simple fact that 1 Byte = 8 bits).

To further prove that the USB is not the bottle neck but the camera plus the card should be, the following simple test has been done for verification. I've connected an external hardisk drive with an USB 2.0 interface, via a cheap SATA-to-USB2.0 adapting case. Here is the result of the harddisk under test, which is just a typically slow 5400 rpm "250GB" one:-

All in all, the above quick test and result actually safely disproves all the unsubstantiated claims of suspecting that the USB is "not fast enough". Even if a slow harddisk with a cheap external casing can do nearly 30MB/s for both the sequential read and write! I am almost sure that if I use a better adapting case with a faster harddisk and re-do the same test again with the disk freshly formatted, the throughput rate can be even higher (and note that my that harddisk under test above is nearly full at 90% spaced used). So, the *bottle neck* must NOT the USB, but the camera+card as a whole instead!

Nevertheless, I do yet agree that the USB does incur some additional overhead in operation and thus would induce some performance loss than the real speed of the cards which could be higher, when they are read and written direclty in-camera. However, the difference should NOT be highly significant against what have been imagined and that it should be noted that it is an apple-to-apple fair comparison of this test. Furthermore, I just wish to ask what other method(s) else could do the measurement more accurately and realistically? (Not even to say to do it easily!) :-o

This time I think the PF guys have done a good job, they carried out the Interview at the CP+ at Japan and have done the translated scripts. I am not sure if they are actually sponsored by Pentax or not for the trip, but one thing is certain, i.e., now they have close relationship with the official Pentax. Nonetheless, I think they have asked a few good questions that we Pentaxians have been concerning about including some long lasting Pentax issues, somehow indirectly. Putting aside those pure marketing and sales talks by Hiraku, here are some more important points and messages that I am extracting from the interview, quoted and summarised as follows:-

- At 4'30": DA50/1.8 and FA50/1.4 will co-exist.

- After 4'30": Whether the DA50/1.8 has the Quick-Shift Focusing (QSF) mechanism cannot be disclosed! (But nevermind, there is 99% of chance that it won't have! It looks exactly like the DA35/2.4, which is essentially a DAL, but not a true DA!)

- After 7'00": OVF is meaningless and EVF is not present for the K-01! (Well, we all knew about the stance of Pentax since the K-01 was marketed! :-|)

- After 10'00": There is currently not many FF lenses in production and the time-frame for a FF body is uncertain.

- After 11'30": DSLR is still required for higher performance and EVF cannot replace OVF with the current technologies.

- After 12'30": There is no FF mirrorless body on their product development roadmap.

- At 14'10": Pentax productions will not be moved back to Japan. (Yes, we all knew!)

- After 15'00": The DA*16-50 SDM lens will be replaced.

After all, this interview is still worth watching. But I just wonder why after the publication of it for more than 12 hours with email alerts to all PF members, there is only about two thousand watches to the video up to now. :-o So, I think it's time for me to promote it and encourage you to watch! :-) It is just because I think it is still valuable, otherwise I just won't bother to mention it! Nevertheless, marketing and sales talks are always existent in between statements but Hiraku is actually a marketing guy, right?

I have acquired a ML-60 focusing screen kit recently, which is a good replacement on the standard screen come with the body and it helps a lot in framing and levelling. It is especially fast and practical to use this "eyeball" method rather than relying on the indication by the electronic viewfinder, IMHO. Furthermore, I've found that the build quality of the screen and the bundled tweezers (i.e., the tool) are high and the packing is also well made and clean.

Together with the instruction sheet, there is also a notice for the change of company name from Hoya to Pentax Ricoh, in Japanese, English and French:-

The screen is replaceable by the user, but it is not completely straight-forward and safe from risk, because the screen is quite vulnerable and could be easily got scratched. Do first read clearly the official instructions and use *only* the dual-head tweezers that is provided. However, I don't think the instructions provided by Pentax are clear and detailed enough. So, in this article, I would like to share my own experience and tell more of my tips for the useful techniques of mine and additional cautions that are to be taken.

The ML-60 instruction cannot be found and downloaded from any Pentax website AFAIK, the closest one in contents and yet is downloadable from the Internet would be the one of the (P)Z-1p, available here.

Here is the full instruction of mine, which should including the basic instructions provided by Pentax:-

0. Prerequisite: Do the job at a clean and dry place! And under bright light source!

1. Turn off the camera;

2. Remove the lens and locate the focusing screen holding frame retainer which is a lock at the top middle:-

3. Incline the camera at 45 degrees (e.g., held by the left hand) such that it is not rested completely with the bottom nor rest with the rear screen, but somewhere in-between! (Will explain below for why this is crucial and recommended!)

4. Use the curved long end of the tweezers to "hook" the lock of the retainer upwards to the mount and the focusing screen holder will come off. The focusing screen, with its holder, are actually coming off together by *gravity*:-

Now, let me explain, if the camera is rested on its bottom, the gravity force may be too large such that it comes off too fast and suddenly and the screen may jump off accidentally so it might be scratched! :-o On the other hand, if the camera is put with the LCD rested on the table, the focusing screen and holder may not come off as the gravity force cannot be applied effectively in that direction! So, a 45-degree inclination is recommended! And this has never been told by Pentax in any of their official documentations provided to the end-users, camera model regardless! :-(

Now that reminds me of Canon's design of the tweezers which is just safer and clever as there is also a special protruding small part to hold securely the frame holder *at the same time* when the retainer is unlocked, whilst Pentax' design has none! :-o

5. Swap the tweezers in opposite direction and use the other flat and shorter end with special shape to grip the protruding small part (where the focusing screen model number is printed) to pick the screen out of the box. My own tip is do remember to push the tweezers head until it completely holds the focusing screen with its bottom (which is like a flat spoon) and with both the left and right tips/hands of the tweezers head are in contact with the screen, like this:-

Push with small force as instructed above so that you can feel that everything is secured as it is designed. (But yet it is not clearly told!)

Don't apply too much force as the screen may be pushed off the holder frame and it would yet be scratched!

6. Pick out the screen with great care and put it into the transitional spare foam slot that is used for screen swapping;

7. Pick out the new replacement screen with the same technique for picking the screen as briefed in Step 5 above. Point it to a bright light source and inspect for dust:-

Use an air-blower to blow off any dust that is existent on the focusing screen surfaces as seen, especially for the upper inner surface which cannot be blown for any attached dust once the screen is installed and until it is uninstalled again- Pentax' instruction has never reminded the user to inspect and blow off the dust, although once again it may be sort of common sense, but still I think this essential reminder should be given;

8. After the "cleaning" has been done, carefully put the screen back onto the holder frame so that it should NOT be in touch with *anything* until it finally land and rest evenly and correctly within the frame holder;

9. Swap the tweezers' end again and use the curved long nose to push back the focusing screen holder until a click sound is heard. The screen is installed successfully!

10. Point the camera to the light source, look from the mount (as above) and then look the viewfinder from different angles and do a final check if everything is okay! :-D

After all, this ML-60 screen is actually a very good piece of optional accessory and is very useful to help keeping proper levels for framing and picture composition and is highly recommended for every K-5/K-7 user! At least last time the Silver Limited edition of the K-5 is bundled with it. Highly recommended!

N.B. The focusing screens of the K-5/K-7 has more obvious matte which facilitate manual focusing and do have more accurate DoF than that of the lower grade Pentax penta-mirror DSLR models, for what I observed.

Monday, February 20, 2012

The John's Phone seems to one of the simplest mobile phone designed ever. Similar to the K-01, it is a "designer" gadget as claimed and it offers you no more than a 2G phone that supports quad GSM frequencies. The full specifications is here.

The most interesting thing of it is that now the phone/address book and games are now back to paper and that the "stylus" of the phone is actually a ball pen! :-o ;-) The phone is cheap enough, though. For US$100, what do you want and would ask for more?

This is the design concept and rationale behind the John's phone. After all, to further appreciate this product, you can watch this YouTube unboxing video. And yes, it actually does have a monitor! But I don't think it would be easy enough to use for its position as placed on the phone's top.

Nonetheless, I don't like that glossy white colour version. It looks and feels too much like a toy. I think if I am really to get it, I would probably get the brown colour version, which looks far better to my eyes.

But this time, I have a different opinion than the above OP's. At this moment, it is completely technically correct for the 50mm on APS-C, i.e., the effective focal and Angle of View is in mid-tele. But if some days later there is really a K-mount Pentax FF body, then this 50mm lens could become a "standard" lens again, as long as it has a true 135 Full Frame coverage.

Further to what we have eye-opened for the last time, I have found out what this crucial saver is and how much does it cost as well as other details about it! See two of the numerous of this same OEM product links below:-

Well, at roughly about (US)$20 additional cost, one of the major in-born design deficiencies of the K-01 is eliminated! :-o So, this is highly recommended! If you're planning to buy a K-01, just don't forget also to order this one! It is also learnt that the K-01 will be made even bigger and look "more professional", yet another big bonus advantage! ;-D

The IQ is not bad IMO, but a bit too tasty in colour saturation and sharpening. I shall see if anyone else will post some not-so-highly retouched (or the in-camera processing levels were set a bit too high) and directly-out-of-the-camera K-01 samples later on.

P.S. I think the photos were taken in Singapore, where I visited the last Summer with my NEX. I may post some travelling photos of mine to share later on.

Whilst the K-01 is not on sales at Japan, it is rather strange that the Pentax Japanese homepage has published a full list of FAQs in Japanese over there, but which there is not any translated English version of it. What a marketing! :-o

Btw, it is made clear that whilst continuous tracking AF is not possible during video recording, now the K-01 can be re-focused during video recording by pressing the AE-L/AF button, once it is set to do so in the custom menu. In fact, this is the first Pentax body which can do so, against what those Canon DSLRs were designed like that long time ago, since the 5D MkII back to 2008!

Besides, it is also noted that wireless flash is now not supported in-camera with the K-01.

Many people seem like the OM-D. Actually I like it too except for the smaller sensor, i.e., noisier, less DR and lack of shallower DoF. The E-M5 model name also looks clumsy in my eyes, too, nevertheless. But anyway, the camera by itself looks really good. So, no harm to share this. Everything actually looks very nice!

Monday, February 13, 2012

Well, I named mine as the RH-01, which has the following appearance and features! ;-D

(The backdrop is close to the main body colour of the Yellow K-01! I think if I had it, it could look slimmer when put onto that as part of the thick body could be hidden! ;-D)

1. It has a thin and small body!

2. It has an articulated monitor!

3. It has an aperture control ring! That's called the "Hyper Operation" in Pentax terminology! In addition, the aperture can be changed at anytime during video recording!! It also had the H.264 MP4 compressed video in 30 frames (long time ago!) that some Pentax fans has *suddenly* raved about! ;->

4. It weights far less than the K-01! :-o The above combo with a *Pentax K-mount* pancake lens is only at 540g, with flash, battery and memory card plus a light handstrap, too. In fact, the above lens weighs 140g by itself, leaving the body alone weighs only at 400g, which is yet ready to shoot. And, if I used a cheaper adaptor, I can save 30g more!

5. The match is with better outlook and more balanced with all those elegant DA limited pancakes rather than a thin lens on a thick bricky body! >:-(

After all, I am keeping my K-x, same as the K-m, which are yet the smallest and lightest Pentax DSLR bodies and most importantly, they are equipped with a *viewfinder*, if they are meant to be made bigger!

Related Posts

Welcome!

Welcome to RiceHigh's Pentax Blog, the Most Popular and Fastest Updated Unofficial and Non-affiliated Online Pentax Resource! Just make sure that you won't get lost here, where might be too much Pentax related information and too many articles to dig up! ;-D Start Explore Now!

Recent Comments

About Me

Since 1988, I have been using a Pentax SLR for shooting. My own profession is an electronics engineer. I am actually a photographic gearaholic and a true Pentax supporter owning ALL Pentax camera systems namely Pentax K and 645 (both Film and Digital) and Q, counting Five in Total. Over years, I have huge investment in Pentax and I do love most of my Pentax glass. After all, Pentax is yet the brand I love and concern most and that's why this Blog!